Should all documents be classified?

Consider a new document that is sufficiently metaphorical and allusionary that it could be about anything. Any assignment of subject classification by a classifier to the document instantly places that subject at the forefront of a readers mind when interpreting the book, thus the classifierbiases all subsequent readers of the document.

The correct classification is not under ``Metaphor'' or ``Allusions'' (both valid Library of Congress Classification System classes) because these classifications are for documents that are about metaphor and allusion, not documents that use metaphor and allusion. The document could be about metaphor and/or allusion as well as using metaphor and allusion, but as previously stated they could equally well be about anything.

If the document remains unclassified, then it is largely inaccessible to library users, since much searching and browsing is performed by subject---this is certainly true of new, recently published works by unknown authors.

Interpretation

The work describing how to catalog and classify using the Library of Congress Classification System is ``Subject Cataloging Manual: Classification'' which includes a section ``General Principles of Classification'' listing the 8 principles. Of 8 principles, all require interpretative evaluation (are not clear, simply and directly implementable using computers as we know them), 6 refer to large external schedules and several use terminology such as ``intent of the author,'' ``influence'' and ``appropriate'' without clear definition.

A more significant problem in attempting to prove the Library of Congress Classification System complete or in-complete is that in ``Subject Cataloging Manual: Classification'' F10 page 2 gives ``Generally Principles of Classification'' and states:

7: Unless instructions in the schedules or past practice dictate otherwise, class works on the influence of one subject on another with the subject influenced.